September 2015

09/29/2015

Google CEO Sundar Pichai gives keynote speech at the September 29 new product event held in San Francisco, CA.

Google's biggest phone just got a bit smaller. On stage in San Francisco this morning, Google unveiled the Nexus 6P, a new version of its Nexus 6 smartphone with a slightly smaller 5.7-inch display and a completely new design. The phone is only 7.3mm thick and is supposed to be about the same overall size as the iPhone 6 Plus — that means it's fitting a slightly bigger screen into a body of about the same size. That screen, a WQHD AMOLED display, actually makes up nearly three quarters of the front of the device. Google used the event to announced the Nexus 5X, too.

Google is calling the Nexus 6P its "most premium phone yet." That's for a lot reasons. It's the first Nexus with an all-metal body. It includes two front-facing speakers. And it also has a fingerprint sensor on the back, placed where Google expects you to rest your finger while holding it. All you need to do is tap on the sensor with your finger, and the phone will wake up and unlock. It can also be used to authorize payments through Android Pay or in the Play Store.

The Huawei Nexus 6P smartphone will come in four color options: grey-silver, white, black and gold (Click Image To Enlarge)

But the really standout feature on the Nexus 6P, at least as Google tells it, is its camera. You'll notice that the 6P has a pretty large camera on its back, and that's because it's hiding away a 12.3-megapixel Sony sensor that features larger pixels than what you'll find on most smartphones, including the iPhone. That should allow the phone to take better photos in low-light, and that's basically what Google is saying. The camera is supposed to be optimized for indoor photography; it also features slow-motion video, 4K video, and burst mode for photos. An 8-megapixel camera is on the front.

Huawei Nexus 6P smartphone (Click Image To Enlarge)

The Nexus 6P is also switching over to USB Type-C for charging. The new reversible cable is starting to spread throughout the tech industry, and Google officially adds support for it in Marshmallow, the new version of Android that's shipping on this phone. Google says that the Nexus 6P also supports fast charging, allowing it to charge twice as fast as an iPhone 6 Plus.

Though Google didn't mention it up on stage, the Nexus 6P has some high-end internals. As mentioned by Wired, the phone has a Snapdragon 810 processor and 3GB of RAM. It also includes a large 3450mAh battery.

Preorders for the Nexus 6P begin today, with device shipments beginning in late October. Pricing starts at $499 for a 32GB model, and rises up to $549 for a 64GB model and $649 for a 128GB model. It'll be available in white, silver, and black. The phone is also unlocked and supposed to work across "major carriers" — though Google didn't name explicitly which ones. Naturally, it'll work on Google's Project Fi network, too. Finally, Google is introducing an extended warranty for Nexus phones. For the Nexus 6P, it'll cost $89 and add provide two years of coverage for mechanical breakdowns and accidental damage.

Google first introduced the Nexus 6 last year in partnership with Motorola. This year, it's working with Huawei instead, which is why the Nexus 6P looks like a brand new phone, rather than a continuation of the design we saw on the original Nexus 6. It's an important move for Huawei, which has been struggling to make inroads into the US, in part due to the country's fears over Chinese spying. Google may also benefit by befriending a Chinese phone maker, as it begins to slowly reestablish itself in what's quickly becoming an enormous technology market for its competitors.

COMMENTARY: At today's Google new product event in San Francisco it announced the Nexus 5X and Nexus 6P, succeeding the Nexus 5 and Nexus 6 respectively. Google’s seventh-generation phones are now official.

The new Nexus 5X and Nexus 6 Plus are meant to replace the Nexus 5 and Nexus 6 respectively (Click Image To Enlarge)

Nexus 5 vs Nexus 5X Side-by-Side Technical Specifications Comparison

Click Image To Enlarge

Nexus 6 vs Nexus 6P Side-by-Side Technical Specifications Comparison

Click Image To Enlarge

Courtesy of an article dated September 29, 2015 appearing in The Vergeand an article dated September 29, 2015 appearing in VentureBeat

“What is the ROI of marketing investments?” “How do marketing expenditures enhance shareholder value?” These are some of the burning questions facing marketing managers today. For a long time, marketing has been considered the “creative” side of business and, since creativity cannot be quantified, marketing has been perceived to lack accountability. However, with increasing financial pressures facing firms in today’s hypercompetitive environment, this perceived lack of accountability has undermined marketing’s credibility and has begun to diminish marketing managers influence and standing in the firm. So what can marketing executives do? The answer lies in designing and implementing processes that streamline marketing efforts with overall business strategy to ensure optimal resource allocations that will maximize marketing performance. We refer to this as Marketing Performance Management (MPM).

Mark Jeffrey defines marketing performance management (MPM) as the combination of tools, processes, and methods used to develop, monitor, measure, and control marketing campaigns and programs to increase the return on both individual and aggregate marketing investments. Marketing campaigns are defined to include all direct and indirect organizational marketing endeavors such as promotions, advertising, analyst relations, customer relationship management initiatives, etc.

The Marketing Investment Portfolio

According to a survey of marketing leaders conducted by Mark Jeffrey, a professor of marketing at the prestigious Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, and author and leading authority in the field of data-driven marketing, on average, organizations allocate their marketing budgets in the following manner across the marketing investment portfolio:

12% in shaping markets.

22% in building brands and customer assets.

52% in generating revenue,

14% in infrastructure and capabilities.

The Marketing Divide - High Performers vs Low Performers

Jeffrey also discovered that are distinct differences between how lower performers and higher performers invest their marketing portfolios as you can see from the following graphic.

Click Image To Enlarge

Lower performers on average spent 58% of their marketing dollars on short-term sales promotions (demand generation) compared to only 48% for high performers.

The survey results and interviews overwhelmingly support that taking a portfolio approach to managing marketing activities and implementing MPM (discussed below) has a significant positive impact on organizational performance in the form of higher market share, sales growth, and increased brand equity.

The Current State of MPM

The survey results and interviews show that senior marketing executives are committed to making marketing more transparent to the rest of the organization. They recognize the need to speak the language of finance and strategy, and they are willing to go the extra mile to ensure that the marketing department is well integrated with the business strategy and goals. However, they are also struggling to optimize marketing management in their organizations. Although, the benefits of MPM are evident there is a significant gap in the MPM process in most organizations.

For example, while selecting marketing campaigns:

73 percent do not use score cards rating each campaign relative to key business objectives prior to a funding decision.

61 percent do not have a defined and documented process to screen, evaluate, and prioritize marketing campaigns.

57 percent do not use business cases to evaluate marketing campaigns for funding.

44 percent do not consider inter-campaign synergies at the time of marketing campaign selection.

38 percent do not think holistically comparing worthwhile marketing campaigns to each other, funding the best overall set of campaigns.

Only 47 percent report that marketing campaign selection is guided by forecasts of campaign ROI, Customer-Life Time Value (CLTV), and/or other performance metrics such as customer satisfaction.

Only 32 percent report that marketing campaign selection is guided by experiments contrasting the impact of pilot marketing campaigns with a control group

Once campaigns are selected, during campaign management there are other evident shortcomings:

63 percent report that they do not break down each marketing campaign in stages and do not use metrics to review the campaigns at each stage.

53 percent say they do not actively modify or terminate under-performing campaigns at any stage of implementation based upon ongoing campaign evaluation.

43 percent indicate that they do not actively track and monitor realized benefits (vs. targets) after completion of marketing campaigns.

40 percent report that campaigns are often not designed to be measured and specific metrics for success are not defined.

Finally, with regards to learning and feedback:

43 percent say they do not use metrics to guide future marketing campaign selection and management.

36 percent of organizations do not conduct post-implementation reviews to solicit campaign team opinions and intuitions regarding successes and mistakes of past campaigns to guide future marketing campaign selection and management.

34 percent do not use insights gained from analysis of data from past campaigns to guide innovations in future marketing campaigns.

29 percent do not identify and share lessons gained from both discussions with campaign team members and analysis of past campaign data

Why MPM Hasn’t Happened

One of the most revealing insights from the study is that despite the impact of MPM on performance, very few organizations appear to be implementing optimized MPM. What is holding them back? Survey respondents point to a number of specific challenges.

TOP MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

69 percent say that business leaders do not understand that ROI is not always applicable to marketing campaigns.

63 percent said that senior managers primarily make funding decisions for individual marketing campaigns based on their gut feel and intuition.

50 percent report that the top management in their organizations does not provide specific strategic goals based on metrics such as return on investments (ROI) to guide marketing campaigns.

49 percent indicate that marketing is not perceived by the CEO as the main driver of strategic advantage.

Only 68 percent say that their business and strategy decision makers have a good knowledge of marketing

CROSS-FUNCTIONAL ALIGNMENT

48 percent do not solicit a cross-functional senior executive input to allocate their marketing campaign funds.

56 percent claim that in their organization most senior managers perceive marketing as a “necessary evil”.

54 percent claim that in their organization there is a lack of mutual respect between marketing and other business executives.

25 percent say that within their organization marketing is not an essential component of business activities.

Finally, 21 percent report that marketing is not an important integrated function within their organizations.

EMPLOYEE SKILLS

64 percent report that they do not have enough employees who have the skill to track and analyze complex marketing data.

47 percent said that overall their marketing staff does not have sufficient working knowledge of financial concepts such as ROI, NPV, and CLTV

MPM Implementation: A Phased Approach

The primary conclusion drawn from the discussions about implementation hurdles is that successfully optimizing MPM is not a matter of a “big-bang” initiative but instead involves a deliberate step-by-step progress. A phased approach will help keep implementation momentum up, foster senior executive confidence that will increase their buy-in, warrant a planned and manageable increase in cross-functional alignment, and give employees enough time to develop their skills and comfort levels with the use of these tools.

THREE STAGES OF MPM SOPHISTICATION

Mark Jeffery's study identified three broad categories of MPM adoption competency: Defined, Intermediate, and Advanced, each illustrated in the following graphic.

Click Image To Enlarge

The three stages of MPM sophistication are approximations based on the survey responses and personal experiences shared in interviews.Survey questions were maplped into criteria that characterized each category. An MPM “level score” in the range of 0 to 100 was computed for each respondent. The score was based on an average of the total affirmative responses to questions across all categories. The distribution of those scores was used to determine the general category groupings of respondents. A chart of the distribution of MPM scores for all respondents is shown above.

STAGE ONE: DEFINED

The average organization in the “Defined” level focuses on developing processes and procedures that provide general objectives and goals to guide marketing campaign selection and management. Organizations at this level have put in place a centralized database that tracks the performance of all marketing campaigns and assets. Finally a learning culture, albeit weak, is in place where campaign team opinions and intuition regarding mistakes and successes of past campaigns is used to guide future campaign selection and management. In short, a “Defined” process is established to manage all marketing activities for the organization.

The benefits of performing these processes are straightforward:

Decision-making is simplified by a single comprehensive view of all marketing assets, investments, and resources.

Unmonitored marketing spending is eliminated and resource utilization is improved.

Provision of general objectives and goals reduces planning and management rework.

The marketing manager is better equipped to learn from past mistakes and therefore improve marketing management over time

STAGE TWO: INTERMEDIATE

The average organization in the “Intermediate” level has already achieved a centralized view of marketing assets, investments, and resources. “Intermediate” organizations have also adopted the practice of providing general objectives and goals to guide marketing campaign selection and management and also learn from past mistakes. MPM efforts at this level are focused more on rigorous provision of objectives and goals regarding final deliverables of marketing investments and application of advanced metrics for planning, managing, and reviewing marketing investments. “Intermediate” level organizations have adopted the use of an enterprise data warehouse (EDW) to track customer interactions with the firm and marketing campaigns. Finally, along with opinions of campaign team members, analysis of data is also used to guide future campaign selection. In short, an “Intermediate” process is established to manage all marketing activities.

Better communication with a corporation’s finance department and corporate leadership through the common language of financial metrics.

Easier comparison of results with peer companies.

Frequent review cycles to help address deviations from plans in scope, budget, and strategic alignment allowing for corrective actions earlier rather than later

STAGE THREE: ADVANCED

The most savvy marketing management teams distinguish themselves by their ability to track and monitor marketing campaigns and assets using automated software such as MRM. “Advanced” level organizations use Active Data Warehouse (ADW) to guide automated event driven marketing and utilize score cards rating each campaign relative to key business objectives to guide campaign funding. Finally, they have a holistic view of all their campaigns and apply portfolio management techniques to fund overall best set of campaigns, while continuously monitoring realized benefits and business value (ROI) for marketing campaigns during campaign execution.

The benefits observed by these organizations include:

Improved valuation of marketing investments.

Broader spectrum of quantitative metrics to use in tracking marketing campaigns.

Ability to maximize the value of the marketing campaign portfolio while ensuring alignment with corporate strategy.

09/28/2015

It’s an established fact that Android is the dominant mobile OS around the world. Estimates claim that Android owns from just over 50 percent to nearly 80 percent of the mobile device market, but Apple is winning where it counts—money. According to data released by Apple it seems the iPhone money train is still steaming along nicely with a record-breaking 13 million iPhone 6S and iPhones 6S Plus units sold in just the opening weekend.

The iPhone 6S and iPhone 6S Plus are really just getting started. On October 9 the devices will become available in 40 additional markets, including Italy, Mexico, Russia, and Spain. Apple says the new smartphones will be available in more than 130 countries by the end of the year, which means the iPhone 6S and iPhone 6S Plus sales figures will just keep climbing.

Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, said.

“Sales for iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus have been phenomenal, blowing past any previous first weekend sales results in Apple’s history. Customers’ feedback is incredible and they are loving 3D Touch and Live Photos, and we can’t wait to bring iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus to customers in even more countries on October 9.”

Evolution of the Apple iPhone from the 5S to the huge iPhone 6S Plus (Click Image To Enlarge)

As a whole, Android will sell far more devices. The vast majority of those devices are typically Galaxy devices—which Samsung sells in massive volume. Despite outselling Apple significantly in terms of volume, though, Samsung makes a fraction of the profit that Apple does. Apple is making an estimated 92 percent of the profit in the mobile industry, followed by Samsung at a distant second with 15 percent. It adds up to more than 100 percent because the rest of the Android and other mobile device makers actually lose money according to IDC.

"It turns out that two thirds of the devices that make up Android’s 81 percent market share are cheap “junk phones”. The remainder is primarily Samsung, which makes up 39.9 percent of the total Android devices shipped.

There is another area where dominant market share isn’t turning out to be an advantage for Android. In spite of a greater than six-to-one advantage in device market share, Android doesn’t sell more apps, or generate more advertising revenue than Apple."

It turns out that two thirds of the devices that make up Android’s 81 percent market share are cheap “junk phones”. The remainder is primarily Samsung, which makes up 39.9 percent of the total Android devices shipped.

There is another area where dominant market share isn’t turning out to be an advantage for Android. In spite of a greater than six-to-one advantage in device market share, Android doesn’t sell more apps, or generate more advertising revenue than Apple.

COMMENTARY: The worldwide smartphone market grew 13.0% year over year in 2015 Q2, with 341.5 million shipments, according to data from the International Data Corporation (IDC) Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker. This growth is primarily due to gains experienced in emerging markets such as APEJ and MEA. This quarter's shipments were slightly lower than forecast and IDC expects to see a noticeable slowdown in smartphone shipments in 2015 as China joins North America and Western Europe in a more mature growth pattern. Android dominated the market with an 82.8% share in 2015 Q2. Samsung reasserted its global leadership with a renewed focus on lower-cost smartphones.

Click Images To Enlarge

Android dominated the smartphone market with a share of 82.8%. Samsung, the #1 contributor, had lower volumes QoQ and YoY. This comes in the midst of an underwhelming performance by its flagship releases, Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge. However, the Android share has seen a rise compared to 2015Q1, with strong growth in unit shipments by other players such as Huawei, Xiaomi and ZTE.

iOS saw its market share for 2015Q2 decline by 22.3% QoQ with 47.5 million shipments. Despite the seasonal decline, Apple enjoyed success thanks to consumers' insatiable appetite for the larger screened iOS devices. The popularity of the iPhone 6 Plus continued in many key markets including China, where the overall smartphone market saw a revival in growth by 6.7%.

Windows Phone experienced a QoQ decline of 4.2% with a total of 8.8 million units shipped this quarter. Since its acquisition of Nokia in 2014, Microsoft has been revamping the product portfolio with Microsoft branded Lumia devices. But now that Microsoft has decided to take a loss on its Nokia purchase, the scenario for Windows Phone looks bleaker. Acer is a new entry into the top five in this segment. Most other vendors took a beating in shipments QoQ, with the exception of Samsung, which showed an 8.5% increase with its ATIV range of phones.

Blackberry OS, which saw a small increase in some regions, continued to decline in growth globally. The bulk of its volume shipments came from the Blackberry Classic.

Courtesy of an article dated September 28, 2015 appearing in Forbes, an article dated August 25, 2015 appearing in IDC and an article dated September 9, 2015 appearing in TechCrunch

09/27/2015

The smartphone space is quite cluttered right now. It might not seem like it in major markets, since Apple and Samsung dominate the smartphone industry, but there are dozens of companies around the world fighting for space in consumers’ pockets. Different companies use different strategies to try to separate their products from the pack, but by and large, most companies hit the same notes. Since Samsung and Apple dominate the high end, other companies compete on price.

Nextbit Robin cloud-based smartphone (Click Image To Enlarge)

Interestingly, no smaller smartphone makers have made a real effort to break through by addressing one of smartphone users’ top pain points in a new and creative way… until now.

Meet Nextbit and its first new smartphone, the Robin, which features a delightfully unique design along with smart, innovative software at a very affordable price point.

Beginning with the scrappy startup behind the Robin, Nextbit was founded by a number of big names in the mobile space. CEO Tom Moss was formerly an executive on the Android team at Google, and he’s also a founding board member at Cyanogen. CTO Mike Chan worked as an engineer on Google’s Android team and then spent time at Motorola, and chief design and product officer Scott Croyle is the well-known name behind HTC’s One M7 and M8.

The company was founded in 2013 and counts Google Ventures and Accel Partners among its investors.

Nextbit has been buzzing over the past few months and we all knew something fun was coming, but I’m not sure anyone expected the Robin. This sleek but unassuming smartphone isn’t an iPhone killer or a Galaxy killer, and it won’t kill any other smartphones on the market. Instead, it’s a problem killer, and it has its sights set on what is constantly listed near the top of smartphone users’ chief complaints with their phones: Storage space.

How many times have you gone to capture a video on your iPhone or Android phone and seen that dreaded storage full message? How many times have you tried to transfer new movies or music to your phone ahead of a trip and had to clear out space before you were able to?

Most of us have run into issues with free storage on our phones, and that’s why storage is consistently listed along with battery life as a top complaint in studies that look to determine users’ biggest problems with their phones.

Using some cloud-based software wizardry, the Robin solves the problem of storage in a brilliantly simple way. Well, it’s simple for the end user, but it’s a wonderfully complex engineering feat behind the scenes.

Nextbit calls the Android-based Robin the word’s only “cloud-first” smartphone, and that’s an accurate description. The handset ships with 32GB of internal storage, but that memory is completely dynamic and is supported by an additional 100GB of cloud storage.

Here’s how it works: you have apps, movies, music, photos, videos and all sorts of other files on your phone, but you don’t ever need to access all of that data at once. So, when your phone is nearing its 32GB local limit, the Robin begins intelligently deleting apps and files from your device to make room for new data.

But “deleted” isn’t the right word. Everything pushed off of your device is backed up to the cloud, complete with all user data and settings. So, for example, if the Robin removes Angry Birds from your phone to clear space as you capture some video at your daughter’s soccer game, you can pull it back down from the cloud on demand and you’ll be able to pick things up right where you left off.

The Robin also learns as you use it, so apps and files you use often will be kept on the device, while other items you rarely use will be the first to be kicked off to the cloud when you need more storage.

This smart solution effectively allows Robin owners to forget about storage space and just… use their phones. And in a meeting ahead of the phone’s debut, Nextbit was careful to point out a number of times that the magic behind this innovative cloud solution was designed with data caps in mind.

Data is used as sparingly as possible, and Wi-Fi is favored heavily by Nextbit’s software. Since the handset backs up data frequently while connected to Wi-Fi, it can delete unchanged apps, videos or photos on the fly without having to back them up on the spot when a Wi-Fi network isn’t available. That said, it is not yet clear exactly how much cellular data Nextbit’s solution will use in practice.

Now, for the bad news: you can’t buy a Robin yet. The phone is slated for launch in the first quarter of 2016, but preorders went live on Kickstarter beginning September 1. The first 1,000 Robins will be made available at just $299, and then the phone will be $349 for the duration of Nextbit’s 30-day campaign. When the phone launches early next year, it will cost $399.

I spent time using an early version of the Robin and it’s safe to say I was impressed. The phone is familiar but unique, with a simple design that uses concave circles and color accents to separate itself from the pack. There is also a set of LEDs on the back to let you know when Robin’s cloud magic is working.

Then, the software is unmistakably Android. The Robin I used was running Lollipop, though the launch version may have Marshmallow. In either case, the software has a very “pure Android” look and feel that enthusiastic Android fans will love.

COMMENTARY: With only three days to raise donations via Kickstarter, With only three days to go, Nextbit has already received 3,436 pledges totally $1,286,766. This is well in excess of its goal of raising $500,000. Not bad for a young smartphone startup.

In spite of this successful raise through Kickstarter, and VC investments from Google Ventures and Accell Partners, it is going to be a challenging and very difficult slog for Nextbit to establish itself as a viable alternative to the Apple iPhone and Samsung Galaxy smartphones, who dominate the smartphone market.

I could be wrong about this, but even at $399 per phone, Nextbit will probably lose money on every phone they make. Nextbit must capture significant market share to generate economies of scale to get their smartphone production costs sufficiently low enough to generate decent gross profit margins. However, the sleek and smart design and cloud-based technology of the phones definitely provide a unique value proposition that might attract some buyers to the company.

Disadvantages of the phone include its minimal display and camera resolutions, but somewhat faster processor speed. The Robin battery can also more than holds its own against the iPhone 6S and Galaxy S6.

Display

Robin: 5.2" IPS 1080p

iPhone 6S: 4.7" IPS 1334 x 750 - 326ppi

Samsung Galaxy S6: 5.1" Amoled 2560 x 1440 - 577ppi

Camera

Robin: 5MP

iPhone 6S: 12MP

Samsung Galaxy S6: 16MP

Processor

Robin: Qualcomm Snapdragon 808 64-bit 2.0Ghz quadcore

iPhone 6S: 64-bit 1.8Ghz dual core

Samsung Galaxy S6: 64-bit 2.1Ghz octacore

Courtesy of an article dated September 1, 2015 appearing in BGR and an article dated September 10, 2015 appearing in Gizmagand Qualcomm Series 800 Snapdragon processor comparisons

This week Pebble announced the launch of a new face in its smartwatch lineup: The Pebble Time Round. Dubbed as the lightest and thinnest smartwatch will debut in November 2015 and retail beginning at $249.00. The new addition joins a growing number of smartwatches that favour the classier rounded look such as the LG Urbane and G Watch R, Moto360, Withings; with G-Shock, Swatch and even higher end watchmakers like TAG Heuer launching their own versions soon.

AppleAAPL -0.88% bucks this trend with its square design, but it feels like a forced attempt to alter how wearers perceive what it means to own a watch, and to show that a square smartwatch can carry its own chic. Consumers prefer round watches, whether a traditional timepiece or a smart variant. 80% of watch sales on sale are made on round faced timepieces, according to Ruth Faulkner, the editor of Retail Jeweller. This was backed up in another interview with Will Jones for Trusted Reviews. Jones, a Tablets and Computing Buyer with John Lewis, stated that one reason square watches are falling short with consumers, is that.

“People don’t want to look like they’re wearing a computer on their wrist.”

Apple is no stranger to playing with design over the life of a product. Remember the iPod Nano? Here Apple changed the iPod Nano in 2007 during its 3rd iteration making it more like the original iPod Classic with a squared off design before returning to the familiar candy bar shape again. With the Apple Watch I predict the same will happen and Apple will release two styles side by side to grab a larger consumer share against the proliferation of rounded Android watches.

Different iterations of the Apple iPod Nano music player (Click Image To Enlarge)

For many a circular watch feels more familiar, and ultimately more stylish. Remember Tom Ford trying to wear the Apple as a pocketwatch ? It didn’t take off.

There are of course pros and cons for designing a square-faced watch over a round version and vice-versa;

User experience

Screen design and manufacturing

App design and usability

One startup is looking deeply into how users can input text on a smartwatch, something which is not possible in the current generation of smartwatches. Tusiclaims to make “messaging on small screens simple and fast” via predictive text and abbreviation functionality but on its website it favours text input via round smartwatches.

Apple will have to release a future version, whether Gen-2 or Gen-3, in both variants due to consumer pressure. When Tim Cook revealed the Apple Watch he said

“The Apple Watch is the most personal device we’ve ever created, it’s not just on you, it’s with you.”

Howevers, Cupertino will need to understand that to win the smartwatch war it can’t just force its design on you, it has to work with you and that may mean finally giving you the choice that should have been there in the first place.

As Pebble say on their website, The Time Round is “the perfect companion for those who like their wearable tech a bit more incognito.”. They say incognito, I say classier.

I’ll take the Apple Watch in round please Tim.

COMMENTARY: At the present time, most smartwatches need to connect with a smartphone or tablet for most of their functionality.

Wearables also suffer from a perception problem. Is it a computer, a watch or jewelry? In most important,c0nsumers still don't understand how a wearable might really benefit them. In a recent report on the wearable computing market from BI Intelligence, we also discuss other barriers to adoption, including price, lack of functionality, and style.

We also look at how how the wearables market will perform in the long run. We forecast out shipments numbers, explain why the smartwatch will be the leading wearable device category going forward, and analyze proprietary results from our BI Intelligence consumer survey on smartwatch purchase intent.

Click Image To Enlarge

Here are some key points from the report:

Wearables will see plenty of growth. The estimated global wearables market will grow at a compound annual rate of 35% over the next five years, reaching 148 million units shipped annually in 2019, up from 33 million units shipped this year.

The smartwatch will be the leading product category and take an increasingly large share of wearable shipments.Estimated smartwatch shipments will rise by a compound annual rate of 41% over the next five years. Smartwatches will account for 59% of total wearable device shipments this year, and that share will expand to just over 70% of shipments by 2019.

The Apple Watch will kick-start growth in the overall smartwatch market. The Apple Watch will account for 40% of smartwatch shipments in 2015 and reach a peak 48% share in 2017.

Fitness bands and miscellaneous wearable device types, like smart eyewear, will continue to cater to niche audiences. Fitness bands, because of their appeal to niche audiences interested in health and exercise, will see their share of the wearable device market contract to a 20% share in 2019, down from 36% this year. There will be some blur between fitness bands and smartwatches.

Now that both Apple and Google are in the smartwatch market, they will dominate, much as they have in the smartphone and tablet markets. Because these platforms make up over 90% of the entire mobile platform market, many mobile users interested in wearable devices will gravitate toward Apple Watches and Android Wear-based devices.

Barriers still persist, and these will inhibit consumer wearables adoption and usage. Smartwatches in particular must become standalone computing devices with more robust functionality for the devices to become mainstream. Other barriers include small screen size, clunky style, limited battery life, and lack of a "killer app" that can drive adoption.

09/25/2015

Facebook will drive growth and capture nearly 65% of social network ad revenues in 2015

Worldwide social network ad spending is accelerating even faster than expected, according to a new forecast from eMarketer. Global social network ad spending will reach $25.14 billion in 2015, higher than the $23.68 forecast in April. However, the pace at which the major players are growing differs greatly.

Click Image To Enlarge

The growth in social network ad spending can largely be attributed to a rapid increase in Facebook's ad revenue. eMarketer expects Facebook to capture $16.29 billion in ad revenues worldwide, a jump of 41.8% over 2014. This year, Facebook will take 64.8% of total social network ad spending worldwide.

A portion of Facebook's explosive growth will continue to be driven by Instagram. The mobile picture-sharing app will take in $600 million worldwide this year, accounting for 5% of Facebook's worldwide mobile ad revenue this year. In 2016, eMarketer expects Instagram to make $1.48 billion in worldwide ad revenues, growing 149% over 2015.

With this forecast, eMarketer has adjusted Twitter's worldwide growth rate down since April. Twitter is now expected to grow ad revenues 61.8% this year, taking in $2.03 billion, or 8.1% of total social network ad spending worldwide. In April, eMarketer predicted Twitter's growth would reach 66.9% this year.

eMarketer principal analyst Debra Aho Williamson said.

“Twitter's slowing user growth is impacting its ad business. Twitter has improved its ad targeting capabilities, and it still has a lock on real-time conversation. However, advertisers want to reach a mass audience and that's harder to do on Twitter than on Facebook.”

Click Image To Enlarge

As Facebook continues to grow its user base and capture more revenue, eMarketer has adjusted its ad revenue per user forecast upward. Facebook's ad revenue per user will reach $48.76 this year in the US, higher than the $43.43 forecast in April. Worldwide, Facebook will capture $12.76 per user this year. By 2016, eMarketer expects Facebook to take in $15.18 per user worldwide, and $61.06 per user in the US.

Meanwhile, Twitter will capture $24.48 per US user in 2015, adjusted downward from April estimates. Worldwide, Twitter will capture $7.75 per user in 2015. By 2016, eMarketer forecasts Twitter to capture $10.12 per user worldwide and $32.22 per user in the US.

Courtesy of an article dated September 23, 2015 appearing in eMarketer

The social giant has also enlisted some big publishers and media brands to start pumping out 360-degree videos. They include Discovery, GoPro, NBC’s Saturday Night Live, VICE, LeBron James & Uninterrupted, and, with the help of Disney and Lucasfilm, Star Wars.

The professionals' videos will “help show the range of possibilities with this new medium,” Maher Saba, engineering director for video at Facebook, explains in a new blog post.

To create the videos, a special set of two-dozen or so cameras are arranged in spherical form. As a result, when the resulting video is streamed, users can choose what angle they want to see it from. Saba said.

“On the Web you can do this by dragging around the video with your cursor, and on mobile devices you do it by dragging with your finger -- or even just by turning your device.”

Users should soon be able to hold up their phones, and the 360 video will follow their movement as they turn. At some point in the not-too-distant future, 360 videos will let users virtually immerse themselves in various environments and events from a friend’s trip to the Grand Canyon to a live news broadcast from Iraq.

Earlier this year, Facebook began testing spherical videos. CEO Mark Zuckerberg was especially upbeat about the technology's potential during Facebook’s annual F8 developer conference in March. Facebook is also reportedly working on a stand-alone video app that will support 360-degree “spherical” videos. As sources told The Wall Street Journal, the fate and launch date of the service remains unclear.

The greatest potential for the new videos will come when Facebook launches its Oculus Rift virtual reality headset sometime next year.

By 2020, virtual reality will represent a $30 billion market, while augmented reality will be a $120 billion market, according to a recent forecast from Digi-Capital.

COMMENTARY: Technology is in a constant state of motion in the online video industry, but that doesn’t mean marketers need to adopt every new trend. One thing you do want to pay attention to, though, is 360 video. However, there are five things you need to know about 360 video right now:

1. It’s a different form of storytelling. One of the most important things to consider with 360-degree video, or spherical video as YouTube refers to it, is that creators approach this format as an immersive experience rather than a typical video. Unlike traditional videos and cinema, the viewers have control over what they see. YouTube compares this to a choose-your-own adventure in its blog announcement.

In a nutshell, the viewer controls the recorded camera angle by tilting and panning on their computer or mobile device via the video player. This can be an excellent tool for publishers that want to deliver a rich media experience: You could give your audience a fully interactive look at a tradeshow, a real estate listing, a new building, or even a sports or news event, for example.

2. Like most new systems, there are some pitfalls.360 video produces some amazing footage, but because it’s a new technology there are some production downsides. For marketers, the number one pitfall right now is the cost.

The GoPro and Google Jump

Creators need special cameras to capture 360-degree video. Google and GoPro are creating a 16-camera array called the Jump that can capture high-quality video, but the rig is estimated to be in the $7,000 to $10,000 range based on the cost of 16 GoPro cameras. It’s set to be released later this year. Google is giving select creators early access to the Jump cameras by applying via its website.

360 Heros created its own GoPro rig that uses six GoPro cameras (sold separately) and will set you back $595. There are several consumer 360-degree video cameras out there that are priced around $300, but quality has been a concern with many of them. So, pricing options and quality vary, but it’ll be an investment.

Also, keep in mind that any production team will need time to get up to speed on these cameras. Composition and framing will need to be mapped out and planned ahead of time to accommodate the stich lines, for example. Consider the cost and time of training if you are looking to produce 360-degree spherical video.

3. It will change your production team’s workflow. It’s helpful for marketers to understand the production process. Your team’s post-production workflow will require some modification. To start, the multi-camera content will need to be “stitched” together in editing to create a seamless video.

While some manufacturers do this for you inside of the camera, others require that you use post-processing software. Programs like Kolor (acquired by GoPro), Video-Stitch, and AVP have been popular with early adopters. Video-Stitch says 1 minute of video takes about 1.5 minutes to stitch.

All of this media will also need to be stored somewhere for ingestion and post-processing, so you may need to bump up your team’s storage systems to accommodate the workflow. At minimum, it is suggested that you have 32GB RAM available on your system when working in this format.

Editing this spherical content will differ from other video projects, as well. Once the footage is stitched together, your editor can use popular programs like Adobe Premiere with plugins to finish the video. The main difference is the creative process for your editing teams. They will not be assembling a sequence of shots to show an audience, but rather a 360-degree image that the viewer will have control over when watching. Keep this in mind from beginning to end—from brainstorming and storyboarding to shooting.

4. There’s a lot of opportunity for viewership. The popularity of spherical video is steadily growing in part thanks to video giants like YouTube supporting 360-degree video uploads. Viewers can watch 360-video on YouTube via a computer or its iOS and Android apps.

YouTube is even working with spherical camera manufacturers to allow for seamless compatibly in future releases. Right now, additional metadata and a script must be included with your video upload in order for it to work correctly, but chances are YouTube will simplify this process in the future.

Wherever YouTube is, Facebook can’t be far behind. The social network is definitely making a push for spherical video distribution. Mark Zuckerberg revealed in March that Facebook was testing a 24-camera setup that would allow viewers to move around within a video. He even hinted at plans to get spherical video working in the Facebook newsfeed. This, coupled with Facebook’s acquisition of Oculus Rift in 2014, is proof that we’ll see spherical video on Facebook sooner rather than later.

VLC Media Player and Windows Media also support 360 video playback, in case you were wondering.

5. Once again, timing is everything. Just like live streaming, virtual reality technology has been around for some time now. However, timing means everything when it comes to technology. The emergence of apps like Periscope and Meerkat are great examples of that.

This year, streaming took off on these apps because of the ease of accessibility. Not only can we easily watch live streams, but also we can also quickly create them. Spherical video is following that same path. With YouTube and Facebook investing in it, both publishers and viewers will have the opportunity to distribute and watch 360-degree video content.

Another reason I think 360 video will take off is that it doesn’t require viewers to wear a virtual reality headset like in the past. While the headset option is there and promises a more immersive experience, your audience doesn’t need to wear one in order to enjoy spherical video. This simplifies the viewing experience because your viewer doesn’t need to invest extra money to watch.

Last, but not least, you can expect to see more spherical video creation with the release of consumer-priced 360-degree video cameras. This could be a huge factor given the popularity of photo and video sharing sites. That, in addition to the growth of high-quality smartphone cameras, drones, and GoPro-style sports cameras, could make for a huge push in this new way of producing video.

As with anything else, marketers and publishers should keep in mind how something will benefit their brands. If providing your audience with this type of an experience makes sense, then keep an eye on 360-degree video. Think about the five factors above and decide whether or not you want to experiment with this format.

Today Oculus gave 1,500 developers at the Oculus Connect 2 conference (as well as those at home via livestream or on Gear VR a chance to watch) a look at how the consumer version of the Oculus Rift will roll out in Q1 2016, how Oculus plans to bring virtual reality to millions through the Samsung Gear VR, and how new platforms and controllers will expand the uses of Oculus Rift from games, photos, videos and art.

“This is the dawn of VR and this is a once in a generational moment that we can create something that inspires millions of people.”

Click Image To Enlarge

Iribe brought Mark Zuckerberg on stage, who said.

“[Virtual reality is] like teleporting to some other place by putting on a headset. I was so excited with it because I realized I was seeing the next big technology platform. After video, the next logical step is fully immersive virtual reality. VR is the next platform. In just a few years, VR has gone from being a science fiction dream to reality. All of you are inventing the next major platform.”

Click Image To Enlarge

Later in the keynote, Iribe said the Oculus Touch handheld motion controllers will be shipping in the second quarter of 2016. However they will be available to developers earlier and will include a second Rift sensor.

Toybox, which is being demoed here at the event, is an example of how Touch can be used in a virtual world. Iribe said.

"Toybox demonstrates the power of social VR and is just stretching the surface. It has the potential to be more social than any platform we’ve seen yet.”

The Touch SDK will include the APIs, controller position, as well as avatar hands.

Samsung Gear VR headset works with the complete line of 2015 Samsung Galaxy smartphones and is powered by the Oculus VR virtual reality software (Click Image To Enlarge)

Medium, which Oculus’ new painting app, will open up a new medium, Iribe said.

“Every great platform needs a paint app and this is going to be our paint app.”

Medium will also be demoed here at Connect. It allows you to use your hands to create 3D sculptures in VR.

The Oculus and Samsung partnership to build the Gear VR will open virtual reality to a more mainstream audience with its $99 price point. Though not as powerful as the forthcoming Rift, it only needs a Samsung phone to run and will make it affordable for more consumers to experience VR, starting when it ships in November 2016.

Nate Mitchell, VP Product at Oculus, announced that the consumer version of Oculus Rift virtual reality will be out Q1 2016 (and it will come with an Xbox one controller). Mitchell discussed the launch of the Oculus Ready PC program, which works with NVIDIA and Intel. PCs that work for developers will have an “Oculus Ready” badge on them. The partners include Asus, Dell, Alienware, NVIDIA, and Intel. The specs will be NVIDIA GTX 970/ AMD 290 or greater, Intel i5-4590+, and 8GB+ RAM. All the rigs Oculus showed off cost under $1000.

The Rift SDK 1.0 will be available in December. The number of developers continues to grow: Mitchell said there are more than 200,000 Oculus Developer Center Users.

The Rift is not only for games. Oculus has made an effort to explore new forms of storytelling through its Story Studio department. The first short film Lost was followed by the second short film Henry, which is about a hedgehog that tries to make friends despite his prickly nature. Today on Oculus Share, Henry is available for viewing by anyone with a DK2 and will be available for download for anyone who wants to see how it was produced.

Click Image To Enlarge

The Oculus Platform will have social features, games and app services, and commerce. There will be more features around user profiles including Oculus IDs and avatar pictures. The Oculus Platform will also have its own robust friend graph. There are rooms so people can connect with a group of people before they go into a virtual world.

For developers wanting feedback on their content before sharing it on Oculus Share, the new Oculus Concepts program will let developers distribute content early to testers. It will launch on Gear VR and next year on the Rift.

Palmer Luckey, founder and visionary of Oculus, announced Minecraft is coming to Oculus. It is available for purchase on the Minecraft Windows 10 Edition and Oculus Share in the spring of 2016. Luckey then threw out some Minecraft swag to the crowd, elating fans of the Lego-like building game.

Click Image To Enlarge

The 20 new VR experiences in Gear VR, Rift, and Touch will be demoed today. All of the Touch demos were built with Unity or Unreal Engine. One that’s sure to be a favorite is Netflix, which comes to Gear VR today, and Twitch is coming soon.

While today lacked any blockbuster device reveals, it strengthened the foundation of Oculus’ hardware, software, and platform. The Gear VR now has seductive experiences that will draw rookies towards virtual reality. And the Rift has the developer capabilities necessary to unlock games and apps that will convince people it’s worth the price. In short, after years experimenting in the basement, Oculus is ready for the spotlight.

COMMENTARY: Other highly anticipated games are coming to the Samsung Gear VR:

Monument Valley, a new title from game maker Ustwo.

Lucky's Tale, a cartoonish adventure game from Texas game company Playful.

Eve: Gunjack, a high-energy space shootout game from Ieland game maker CCP.

Bullet Train, a new Unreal Engine VR experience from Epic Games, which is a first-person shooter game where players can use their own hands to aim, fire and throw weapons.

Oculus is also working with Microsoft to adapt its technology to the popular Xbox video game console. and it's working with media companies like Netflix, 20th Century Fox and Lionsgate to bring hit films including Alien, Die Hard, Predator and Birdman and TV shows to the device as well.

To make the Oculus Rift more appealing to customers, Oculus said it has partnered with companies like Alienware, Dell and Asus to sell PCs that are Oculus-ready and able to power virtual reality games and experiences. Some of those PCs, Oculus said, will cost less than $1,000.

Oculus isn't the only company building VR devices.

HTC is partnering with game maker Valve to release a competing headset, Vive, later this year.

Oculus plans another headset, Rift, that will work with computers when it's released early next year.

A long time coming

VR has been a common trope in science fiction -- think Star Trek -- where it's seen a key element of training and entertainment simulations. But its history in the real world has been marked by frustration as clunky technology and high-price tags discouraged both companies and consumers from embracing it.

After decades of false starts, including the high-profile failure of game giant Nintendo's Virtual Boy, the industry may have a product it can sell at an affordable price. VR headsets contain hundreds of high-tech parts, many of which are also used in smartphones, a booming market where leading companies have driven down costs for everything from high-quality screens to gyroscopic sensors.

Palmer Luckey, the 23-year old inventor behind Oculus, is also behind the optimism. His Rift headset reignited interest in VR when it was announced in 2012, promising to make the technology affordable and easy to use. Oculus quickly became one of the leading companies making the technology, attracting some of the most high profile names in the technology industry such as VR researcher Michael Abrash and game making legend John Carmack, who headed development of key games like Doom and Quake.

Oculus Rift headset unveiled in 2012 (Click Image To Enlarge)

Michael Abrash, Oculus Rift chief scientist, said the attention the industry is getting and the speed with which it's growing has been surprising. He said.

"Just a few years ago, all of this would have been totally inconceivable."

Oculus also offered details about the Oculus Touch controllers it's developed for the Rift headset. The company said they'll be offered to consumers by the middle of next year, and will have a compliment of games and experiences prepared when it does. One will be called Toy Box, in which people can stack blocks, throw balls and shoot guns.

All of this will likely attract enthusiasts to buy its device, but whether general consumers will buy in is still unclear. Zuckerberg said even smartphones didn't sell in large numbers initially, and suggested VR may follow that trend as well. Zuck said.

"Facebook is committed to this for the long term."

Courtesy of an article dated September 24, 2015 appearing in TechCrunch and an article dated September 24, 2015 appearing in C|NET and an article dated September 24, 2015 appearing in Forbes

09/22/2015

It's expensive, difficult, and demands the kind of time most people get only when they go on vacation — or retire. From the dried up fairways of Southern California to the vacant course-side condos on the Carolina coast, we survey the sport's demise — and the entrepreneurs hoping to reinvent it for a new, less patient generation.

One night last September, my 15-year-old daughter, Esmee, told me her plan to try out for the girls golf team here in Pacific Palisades, California. While I was pleased with her interest in golf — which I'd played semiseriously, along with seemingly every other man under 40 in the Tiger-dominated late '90s — I felt I had to prepare her for the inevitable letdown. She lacked the requisite power and the repeating, compact swing I assumed were required of a varsity golfer. Do your best, I told her, but be prepared for the possibility that you might not make the team.

When she texted me a week later to say she'd made the cut, I was stunned. In the years I'd gone to the school, the golf team was a bunch of country club regulars whose swings were nice right-path whips, golfers who'd been playing for a half-decade by the time they got to high school. I asked the coach, James Paleno, what had changed.

Paleno says.

"There just isn't the interest we used to have 14, 15 years ago. Now I have kids showing up who have never hit a golf ball before. Kids are just less aware of golf. They have too many other options. And then when they find out it takes five and a half hours to play 18 holes, they're just not interested."

Click Image To Enlarge

By any measure, participation in the game is way off, from a high of 30.6 million golfers in 2003 to 24.7 million in 2014, according to the National Golf Foundation (NGF). The long-term trends are also troubling, with the number of golfers ages 18 to 34 showing a 30 percent decline over the last 20 years. Nearly every metric — TV ratings, rounds played, golf-equipment sales, golf courses constructed — shows a drop-off. Oliver "Chip" Brewer, president and CEO of Callaway. says.

"I look forward to a time when we've got the wind at our back, but that's not what we're expecting. This is a demographic challenge."

During the boom, most of those 20-somethings who were out hacking every weekend were out there because of one man: Tiger Woods. Golf's heyday coincided neatly with Tiger's run of 14 major golf championships between 1997 and 2008. If you listen to golf insiders, he's the individual most to blame for those thousands of Craigs­list ads for used clubs. When Tiger triple-bogeyed his marriage, dallied with porn stars, and seemingly misplaced his swing all at once, the game not only lost its best player; it also lost its leading salesman. The most common answer given by golf industry types when asked what would return the game to its former popularity is "Find another Tiger."

Golf's fortunes seem to rise and fall with Tiger Woods' play. He hasn't won a major since 2008. Photograph by Robyn Beck-AFP-Getty Images (Click Image To Enlarge)

But you can't blame one man's wandering libido for the demise of an entire sport. The challenges golf faces are myriad, from millennials lacking the requisite attention span for a five-hour round, to an increasingly environmentally conscious public that's reluctant to take up a resource-intensive game played on nonnative grass requiring an almond farm's worth of water, to the recent economic crisis that curtailed discretionary spending. Brewer says.

"Golf is an expensive, aspirational game, and a lot of millennials are struggling with debt and jobs. If you don't have a job, golf doesn't really fit you very well."

Combine the game's cost with the fact that golf is perceived as stubbornly alienating to everyone but white males — Augusta National, home of the Masters and perhaps the most famous golf club in the world, didn't accept black members until 1990 and women until 2012 — and it's no wonder young people aren't flocking to it. Greg Nathan, senior vice president of the NGF, says.

"One of the major reasons golf hasn't been growing is because historically, it has not been welcoming enough. We need to make people feel more comfortable."

Not long ago, the game could count on young fathers to hide out on the links, and weekend tee slots are still filled with plenty of off-duty dads. But it takes two to properly helicopter-parent a family these days, and that means parents are spending more of their weekends at the playground than at the country club.

During the Tiger boom, everything about the game seemed to expand, from the length of the putters to the size of driver heads to the scale of the courses themselves. Gary Player, the only non-American to win a career Grand Slam, notes.

"When I won the U.S. Open at Bellerive in 1965, the course measured 7,191 yards. It was a monster. Now, 7,500-yard courses are everywhere."

And those courses have raised their greens fees. Pebble Beach may be able to charge $495 for a round, but when your local public course wants $150, it gets steep. And many of those golf courses weren't designed merely for golf; they were the lure for tens of thousands of homes that aimed to deliver one version of the American dream: golf course frontage.

COMMENTARY:

The symptoms of golfings decline are evident everywhere and can be found in many forms.

Decline in Golf Equipment Sales

Slow golf equipment sales over the past two years have created a glut of inventory at wholesale and retail outlets, forcing them to slash prices. Dick’s Sporting Goods(DKS) was selling some drivers, priced at $299 just a few months earlier, for $99, Chief Executive Officer Ed Stack said on an investor call on May 20, 2014. That day, Dick’s reported it missed its golf gear sales target by about $34 million in the first quarter of 2014. The news helped send the retail chain’s stock down 18 percent, its worst one-day tumble since the company went public in 2002. Stack said.

“We don’t feel we’ve found the bottom yet in the golf sales number.”

TaylorMade, a golf equipment maker owned by Adidas (ADS:GR), reported a 34 percent drop in sales in the first quarter 2014. And Callaway Golf (ELY), maker of the Big Bertha driver, delivered its own dim forecast in April 2014, warning that full-year profit could come in at the low end of its previous estimate. CEO Chip Brewer told investors.

“We anticipate a heavy promotional environment while the industry works through excess inventory.”

Callaway hasn’t reported an annual profit since 2008.

Industry insiders point to last year’s double bogey by sports retail giant Dick’s that crimped revenue and margins industry-wide. Dick’s, which is reportedly in talks to go private, last summer fired more than 400 PGA professionals at its namesake stores (the sporting goods retailer also owns the Golf Galaxy chain) and slashed prices on golf equipment as there wasn’t enough demand to meet the supply stuffed into the market; lower prices obviously mean less overall revenue.

TaylorMade’s Sharpe is mindful of that oversupply as the company has released new equipment and he prepares for his first spring on the job. Sharpe says the company will be “more deliberate” in its distribution to avoid an inventory glut, “which causes deflation and compromises the launch of the next generation.”

This deflation is training consumers to hold off on new purchases and weighing on equipment sales, says Tom Stine, co-founder of Golf Datatech. Stine says.

“Overall golf sales are down, but that doesn’t mean they’re down because golf is going out of business. Golfers are not going away, they’re more cautious in spending money and trying to get a better deal.”

Click Image To Enlarge

Economic Impact of Golf

The U.S. golf industry has an estimated direct economic impact of around 70 million U.S. dollars annually. This figure is based on several segments such as golf course capital investment, golf facility operations, golfer supplies, charities and tournaments and associations.

It includes for example around 20 billion U.S. dollars from green fees and consumer purchases of golf equipment to the value of 3.4 billion U.S. dollars. These equipment purchases include items such as golf clubs (woods, irons, hybrids and putters), golf bags and balls. The average price for a set of golf clubs was at 40 U.S. dollars in 2011, golf shoes sold for an average of 66 U.S. dollars at the retail level. The wholesale sales of golf equipment had a value of around 2.5 billion U.S. dollars in 2011.

Among the leading golf equipment companies in the world is Callaway Golf with revenues of 834 million U.S. dollars in 2012. Its drivers, fairway woods and hybrid segment contributed 24 percent to the total revenue. Irons (20%), putters (11%), golf balls (17%) and accessories (28%) are the other reported segments of Callaway Golf. Callaway’s main market is the U.S. where the company generated almost 50 percent of its revenue.

Around 26 million people play golf in the U.S., at least occasionally, at approximately 15,600 golf facilities. Among the leading golf club operating businesses is ClubCorp. The company operates 102 golf and country clubs and 49 business, sports and alumni clubs mostly in the U.S. Overall the company has approximately 145,000 memberships and 350,000 individual members with total revenues of almost 755 million U.S. dollars in 2012.

Consumer spending on golf equipment in the U.S. from 2007 to 2015 (in million U.S. dollars)

Click Image To Enlarge

The Generational Shift

Although an especially cold winter and the sluggish economy are no doubt part of golf’s problem, a generational shift is a bigger cause for concern. Jim Koppenhaver, president of Pellucid, says.

"The baby boomers were supposed to be the salvation of golf. We’ve got to find a way to stem the decline in the golfer base.”

Millennials have left golf in droves, but the baby boomers have yet to take up the slack. His company’s research shows the number of golfers today is lower than in 1990, even though the U.S. population is 27 percent greater.

Changing Lifestyles

Koppenhaver calls the traditional 18-hole round “an anachronism,” requiring about six hours “door-to-door,” including more than four on the course. Nor does the pastime have the social currency it once held. Explains Gerald Celente, publisher of marketing magazine Trends Journal:

“Everybody’s hooked up to their handhelds, so [today] it’s social networking instead of sports.”

Golf Courses Closing And Golfers Playing Fewer Rounds

Overbuilding in the 1990s led to a surfeit of courses as the growth that operators anticipated never materialized. Only 14 new courses were built in the U.S. in 2013, while almost 160 shut down, the National Golf Foundation reports. Last year marked the eighth straight year that more courses closed than opened.

Those sticking with the sport are playing fewer rounds. U.S. golfers played a total of 462 million rounds last year, according to researcher Golf Datatech. That was the fewest since 1995. Says Morelli:

“All the people under 35 are leaving the game.”

Marketing of Golf Changing

To attract more casual players and expand revenue, particularly among younger people, clubs are rethinking some of the sport’s tenets. The U.S. Golf Association, the PGA of America, and Golf Digest have launched a “Time for Nine” campaign to counter complaints that the traditional 18-hole game takes too much time. And some clubs are adding attractions such as yoga and hovercraft rides.

Then there’s Hack Golf, a movement to identify the parts of golf that aren’t fun and fix them. A standard cup is 4.25 inches in diameter, often making even short putts difficult to sink. Some courses have added wider holes to make the sport faster and easier, with a Golf.com story in April asking, “Could a 15-inch hole be the answer to golf’s growth problem?” TaylorMade in April sponsored a 15-inch cup tournament. The brand also co-sponsors a website with the PGA, hackgolf.org, with the goal of “crowdsourcing the future of golf.” The site has elicited 1,471 ideas. A recent suggestion: smartphone apps to reserve tee times, pay for services, and communicate with the pro shop.

Clubs in more than 30 states, including the PGA Country Club in Port St. Lucie, Fla., are even trying FootGolf, a combination of golf and soccer designed to capitalize on the growing popularity of the latter. The game is played with a regulation No. 5 soccer ball on a course with shortened holes and 21-inch cups. Wearing knee-high argyle socks is recommended.

The professional and marital decline of Tiger Woods, once the public face of golf, hasn’t helped. With neither Woods nor Phil Mickelson playing at the 2014 Masters, only 7.8 percent of U.S. television households tuned in—the tournament’s lowest TV rating since 2004, according to Nielsen. That was a 24 percent decline from the 2013 finale, when Woods and Mickelson played and 10.2 percent watched.

Courtesy of an article in the August 2015 issue of Men's Journal, an article dated June 19, 2014 appearing in Bloomberg Business, an article dated January 22, 2015 appearing in Fox Business, and an article titled, "The Economic Impact of Golf" appearing Statista

09/21/2015

Many large companies worldwide are facing a conundrum when it comes to using social media to help generate new business.

On the one hand, firms of all stripes are pouring large sums of money into using paid media to do outreach to consumers on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter — and are allocating larger slices of their digital ad pies for that purpose.

In the United States alone, advertisers will spend $9.59 billion on social ads this year, according to the market research firm eMarketer. This represents a 31 percent surge from the 2014 outlays on social media, and more than double what was put into this segment in 2013.

Click Image To Enlarge

By 2017, U.S. advertisers will boost their social ad outlays to $14.4 billion, eMarketer projects. By that point, social ads are expected to consume nearly $1 out of every $5 in U.S. advertisers' budgets.

This year, social will account for 15.9 percent of North American ad budgets — up from 10.5 percent just two years ago. But while eMarketer has estimated that nearly 90 percent of companies with 100-plus employees did social marketing last year, many firms are also having trouble achieving their goals in that realm.

Click Image To Enlarge

A study that Ascend2 published in December 2014 discovered that 43 percent of respondents found a lack of in-house resources and skills as their most challenging obstacle to success from social media marketing. Another 42 percent complained about an inability to measure return on investment, and 39 percent cited a lack of effective strategy.

These results suggest that for many companies it may make sense to outsource the job of social outreach to prospective customers (something that the Ascend2 study found 53 percent of respondents were doing, in whole or in part).

However, as companies worldwide learned during the great outsourcing boom of the previous two decades, farming out important jobs carries risk.

As Hootsuite has pointed out, having someone else handle your social marketing can result in everything from an added layer of bureaucracy for customers to navigate to slower response times to consumer inquiries.

In social media outsourcing, as in every area of business, it's important to pick partners wisely — and to follow sensible practices in managing your relationships with those vendors.

Five Keys to Social Media Outsourcing Success

Success in outsourcing social marketing boils down to five considerations:

Setting realistic goals: Before talking to prospective vendors, executives need to establish what they want to achieve from a social campaign and how outreach in this realm can help achieve them it. Up-front research is key to know what's doable.

Doing due diligence: A relationship with a key vendor can bear certain similarities to marriage. As any divorce lawyer can attest, bad marriages can wreak havoc on the lives of everyone involved. It's thus vital to do as much up-front checking on prospective vendors as possible.

Being reasonable: As CIO.com has pointed out, hardball business tactics (e.g., beating vendors down on price or paying bills slowly) can lead to hard feelings — and problems down the road. Maintaining good relationships with vendors can lead to better results for both parties.

Using a carrot and stick: In social media, as in any area of outsourcing, it makes sense to pay for performance. This means structuring the vendor's compensation so it has an incentive both to work only in the client's best interests and to help achieve business goals.

Getting everything in writing — including an escape hatch: If client and vendors both leave extensive paper trails on their key interactions, it provides both parties with strong motivations to live up to their sides of the bargain, along with a quick and fair way to resolve disagreements. Every vendor agreement should provide the customer with some type of "kill switch" to get out of the deal if things aren't working out.

Ultimately, a relationship between a company and its social media vendor is just that — a relationship. And like any interaction between people, the client will only get out of the association what it puts in.

The more a vendor can learn about a client's business and its goals, the better the vendor can serve.

And isn't that what outsourcing is about in the first place?

COMMENTARY: As has been pointed out in the above article, the biggest obstacle small business owners face in managing social media inhouse is a lack personnel with sufficient expertise in social media marketing and management systems.

Simply having a social media presence on social networks like Facebook, Twitter or Pinterest, does not provide sufficient experience for small business owners to manage their social media inhouse. Managing your social media means a lot more than just posting updates in your newsfeed, generating Likes and retweets for your content, or sending messages with your fans and followers.

At some point, small business owners are faced with the decision to do their social media inhouse or outsource their social media. So, let's look at a few cost estimates.

Social Media Management Costs

According to Mack Collier, a social media marketing thought leader and blogger, here's what outsourcing social media PR costs for Twitter and Facebook platforms:

Twitter - Launching a new Twitter account, complete with setup and outsourcing content creation/consumer interaction (all 140 characters at a time), costs an average of $2,000-$4,000 per month – and that's just for Twitter. With that said, the total price range was $1,000-$7,500 per month. If you already have an existing Twitter account, but need some help to take it to the next level, restructuring an existing Twitter account with "limited coaching" to achieve client goals is still going to cost you between $1,000-$2,500 per month, with some charging as much as $4,000 per month…just for Twitter! That's right, if you want Facebook, you're paying extra.

Facebook- If you thought the costs of marketing with Twitter were high, you might want to grab your fainting chair — Facebook marketing rates will give you a case of the vapors. To set up a new Facebook account and provide limited ongoing training to business partners, online PR agencies charge an average of $2,500-$5,000 per month, with some going as high as $9,000. Of course, this also includes status updates and interacting with customers.

If you're shelling out a minimum of $4,500 per month for Facebook and Twitter management, you're not getting any strategy behind the efforts. Social media strategy is an additional cost.

Social Media Strategy Costs

According to Mack Collier, creating a comprehensive strategy for social media marketing and outsourcing all work for all channels (with a minimum of two social networks) costs anywhere from $3,000-$20,000 per month, with the industry average settling between $4,000-$7,000 per month. If you want the social media agency to start the accounts from scratch and consult on a 4- to 12-month contract, you'll pay between $3,000-$15,000 per month. What do they mean by channels, minimum of two? That's just a fancy way of saying that the cost includes both Facebook and Twitter…I'm betting there's probably an upcharge if your company wants Google+, too.

Other Costs To Consider

Customer Personas - If you're doing market research to figure out your customer/client's persona(s) and preferences, it's possible to legitimatize a $20,000 spend to gather the background info necessary to excecute a killer social media campaign. But otherwise, you can probably get much of the same for less money. I also recommend that you read my previous blog posts on developing customer personas dated June 20, 2015, July 20, 2015, September 2, 2014, and March 6, 2014. I have actually helped clients develop customer personas, and it is a grueling process, which is why it costs so much to do. Truth be told, many clients think they know their customers, but they really don't. Knowing customer basics such as gender, age, what they buy, and how often they buy, barely scratches the surface. To do it right, you need more indepth ways of describing and segmenting your customers, hence customer personas.

Social Media Audit - What if you just want an audit of your current social media strategy, with a few pointers on how to improve? This is going to cost you anywhere from $2,000-$10,000. The lower end of this spectrum seems reasonable, especially if you add in the cost of social media training and competitive analysis. The only way to justify a $10k spend is if the social media consultant actually flies out to your office and does an in-depth, in-person training over the course of several days.

Before jumping into the fray and making the decision to go inhouse or outsource or your social media, it might be very helpful to know what small business owners are spending on social media. VerticalResponse conducted a survey of small businesses, and the created this wonderful infographic that shows what SMB's are actually spending.

Click Image To Enlarge

If you are a small business owner, you are probably experiencing advanced stages of sticker shock, and probably ready to drop the whole idea of outsourcing social media. However, keep in mind that 62% of small business owners outsource some or all of their social media functions. Having said this, if you are serious about outsourcing, and willing to make the necessary investment, the next question is: Who do I contact to outsource my social media management and strategy. Well, I just happen to have that information for you, thanks to the good folks at Clutch Firms That Deliver. Clutch has done all the work of reviewing and rating the top social media marketing firms. I am not recommending any particular firm. They are all good. The best of the best.

Make sure that you do your homework when evaluating firms to outsource your social media. You should be asking the following questions:

How long have you been in business?

Who are your clients and can you provide references?

What sets you apart from your competition?

What social media services to you provide?

Do you offer month-to-month or fixed term contracts and what is your minimum term?

Are there any penalties for early termination of contracts?

Do you offer pricing plans for each social media service and how much does each cost per month?

Do you offer package pricing plans, what is included and how much does each cost per month?

How long will it take to accomplish our goals and objectives?

What exactly will I get for my money?

How many people will be assigned to my account and what services do they provide?

How often can we contact you about problems and issues, needs and requests?

How much interaction do you require from the client?

Do you offer clients a dashboard where we can view our social media efforts in real-time?